Category: Work Injury

When employers think about workers’ compensation claims they often think of physically demanding jobs; construction workers lifting and operating heavy equipment or law enforcement hurt on the job. However, sedentary office jobs can also pose potential threats to safety and health. Office and administrative workers’ compensation claims can be avoided by being conscious of the risks and making the proper changes and adjustments to the work environment.

Simple tasks like making sure all officer furniture and technology is adaptable to each employee’s preferences, height and optimal comfort can make a positive impact. Companies would be smart to invest more money into computer screens with swivel capabilities, comfortable mouse pads, keyboards, desks and chairs with adjustability options than paying higher workers’ compensation fees for injured workers in the long term.

Encouraging workers to a break from looking at their computer screen all day may decrease productivity for 10 minutes a day. This is insignificant to the potential loss when a worker is out for visual injuries due to prolonged computer use and will cost more for employers in the end. Positioning computer screens approximately two feet from your employees’ eyes will also lessen potential complications.

According to Safety and Health Magazine trips and falls claim the title for the most common office workplace injury. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 32% of office related injuries are due to employees tripping or falling on things that could have been avoided. Managers and supervisors can alleviate these risk by keeping workspaces clear and all potential obstacles removed. This includes stacks of papers, power cords, boxes, open drawers and anything else that could get in the way of a walking employee.

The most effective protocol is keeping an open line of communication with your employees and have proper reporting methods in place for them to state potential risks and any injuries they may come across. Managers that schedule walkthroughs of their company can be alerted of impending risks and hazards and make the proper modifications to reduce the chances of an accident and subsequently an office workers’ compensation claim.

If you have sustained an injury while working in an administrative position you may qualify for workers’ compensation benefits, contact our attorneys at (866) 557-7500 for a free claim evaluation.

We have seen displays of heroism and community in the face of natural disasters and emergencies. Civilians, first responders, communities of every background band together to help one another. Our immediate reaction is to assist when disaster strikes. Some may get injured during such tasks, and one has to ask-what happens if that’s part of your job?

Many states have regulations in place addressing the needs of workers and laborers in regard to natural disasters or emergency situations. Many workers may sustain injuries due to rescue and recovery missions, whether or not they are a first responder or part of an emergency services team. Others may encounter hazardous working conditions while trying to rebuild. Some of these regulations involve the expedition of prescriptions, procedures, and benefits so claimants aren’t left without medicine or wages. Insurance companies are also developing methods to make care and benefits more accessible-according to an article on BusinessInsurance.com, Chubb Ltd. managed to reach out to 400 claimants prior to the wreckage sustained when Hurricane Florence hit the southern U.S. in 2018. OSHA also released a statement regarding employer and employee safety after Hurricane Michael, the strongest storm on record for the Florida Panhandle.

The best way for employers and employees alike to stay as safe as possible in an emergency situation is to not only communicate, but also adhere to the planned out EAP, or Emergency Action Plan. As an OSHA requirement, employers that have 10 or more employees are required to have an Emergency Action Plan. This is a formal list of steps and procedures to take during an emergency or natural disaster. These include things like assigned training and roles for employees during an emergency, a way to report and communicate the emergency, and other related requirements.

On Thursday April 26th, the Appellate Division, 3rd Department issued an very important decision regarding Police ¾’s claims. The determination has far reaching implications for those permanently injured in the line-of-duty. I hope you will share this information with your memberships as it only adds to the importance of their initial “Injured Employee Paperwork.”

The case, Stancarone v. DiNapoli, is the Appellate Division’s response to the Court of Appeals’ February decision in Kelly v. DiNapoli. For those not familiar with the Kelly case, the Court of Appeals found that a Police Officer, injured when a ceiling rafter collapsed upon him while he was attempting to rescue a family during a hurricane, was not entitled to a ¾’s pension. The ruling, and in a biting dissent, pointed out that the courts have been extremely inconsistent in their ¾’s determinations, specifically pointing to the varying determinations on what is, and is not, an “accident.”

The 3rd Department, who has jurisdiction over Article 78 Appeals emanating from the N.Y.S. Retirement System, acknowledged at the outset “that the standard to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits has not always been clearly stated, with part of the confusion stemming from the use of imprecise and differing language in prior cases.” While the standard definition of “accident”, “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact” is not changed under the 3rd Department’s decision in Stancarone, the 3rd Department set out a new way of analyzing these cases which will have lasting importance.

The first major change announced by Stancarone is a recognition of the Kelly decision’s statement that “requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate an “accident” is inconsistent with case law.” The Court does away with the “readily observable” standard. In short, this directly impacts those “trip and fall” cases that have traditionally been held non-accidental when the officer could not show that the hazard they tripped and fell on was not “readily observable” and therefore could have been avoided. For example, an officer who slipped and fell on a staircase due to a juice box left on the stairs was denied his ¾’s because the judge found that the juice box was “readily observable” and therefore the officer slipping on it was his own “misstep” and not an “accident” for ¾’s purposes. Under Stancarone, the analysis of this hypothetical case is now different. Under Stancarone, the officer’s “inattention” to the juice box which caused his fall cannot be used as the reason he is denied a ¾’s pension. Even if the condition that caused the fall is readily observable, if it was not seen prior to the injury the event leading to the injury can be deemed an “accident” qualifying for ¾’s. The effective elimination of the “readily observable” standard should enable a much fairer analysis of what constitutes an “accident” and bring it more in-line with the “common sense definition of accident” as the Court of Appeals envisioned when it defined “accident” in 1982 in the case Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of New York.

The second major analysis change announced in Stancarone is that the Retirement System must have a “specific information” in the evidentiary record that “a person in the petitioner’s position and location” could have reasonably anticipated the hazard which caused their injury. This finding goes to the “unexpected” nature of the event. For many years the Retirement System has denied ¾’s cases on the basis that an officer could have “reasonably anticipated” the hazard which caused their injury. As an example, the Court points to an officer who is injured due to a slip and fall on a slippery substance in a roadway. The Court stated unequivocally that “a blanket argument, such as “sometimes slippery surfaces exist in public roadways” is, alone, not enough to support a conclusion that the petitioner should have expected or reasonably anticipated the spot on which he or she slipped.” The court stated that a finding that the condition which caused the injury was “reasonably anticipated” must be supported by the “substantial evidence of record.”

The importance of this second change cannot be understated. Far too often an officer has been denied ¾’s because a Hearing Officer has issued a determination that the hazard presented was “reasonably anticipated” based on nothing but general conjecture and speculation. The Court now demands that the Retirement System analyze the micro-factors of the specific officer, the specific location and position of the officer at the time of the injury and explain why the hazard could have been reasonably anticipated by the individual officer.

As noted above, the Stancarone decision only adds to the importance of an officer’s initial injury paperwork. “Contemporaneous documentation” is still considered the most relevant, and accurate, description of the accident so getting it right remains the highest priority. Officer’s should take care to explain, where possible, such factors as:

–where their attention was when they were Injured – (i.e. “while searching for a suspect”);

–Lighting conditions – (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in a dimly lit back yard”);

–Their familiarity with the area- (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in dimly lit backyard that I have never previously been in before”); the specific hazard (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in a dimly lit backyard that I have never been in before I tripped and fell due to a large tree branch.”);

–A statement about the surrounding area – (i.e. “While searching for a suspect in a dimly lit backyard that I have never previously been in before I tripped and fell due to a large tree branch. I had not encountered any previous tree branches or other footing hazards in the backyard prior to my fall).

-Of course, all injuries are unique, and any other factors which may be relevant to why the officer could not have reasonably anticipated the hazard should be presented.

Understanding that many officers speed through the initial paperwork because they are 1) in pain and 2) very rarely believe that their injuries are career ending, I urge union officials and delegates to reach out to me (646-831-6229) or Ed McIntyre (631-921-5499) at any time to ensure that an officer highlights the important factors surrounding his/her injury.

Changes to the Scaffold Law have been at the crux of recent discussions in the construction industry. In New York, 2016 and 2015 were statistically the deadliest years for construction workers-dozens of articles recording deaths due to improper equipment were published. In late 2017, two workers fell to their deaths during the same day on separate projects in the city.

Many businesses are citing unnecessary regulations on businesses, higher insurance costs for businesses, and higher taxes as reasons not to proceed with the updates to the Scaffold Law. However, an article recently published stated that this was one of a number of myths surrounding the Scaffold Law. One of the most damning points listed is that most people don’t actually know what construction insurance premiums look like. In the article linked above, Harry Bronson from the New York State Assembly simply puts:

“Third, the facts about insurance premiums. We don’t have them because insurers won’t disclose them. Insurance companies are in the business of risk analysis based on data. Policy decisions should be made based on data. It is disturbing that insurance carriers refuse to disclose the truth about construction liability insurance premiums. Indeed, if the Scaffold Safety Law were legitimately a financial burden, then one would think that insurers would be eager to validate their position and put the information forward.”

While some are squabbling about red tape, costs, and taxes, NYCOSH published a report called The Deadly Skyline. The report appropriately starts with an in Memoriam section for those who were killed due to falls at sites, listing names, ages and locations. The youngest on the list was 19. One would think even those opposing the bill can agree, worker safety is priceless. The precursor to this was when a number of NYCOSH reports related construction injuries and fatalities to union or non-union work sites. These NYCOSH reports showed a greater likelihood to get injured on a non-union project, and that Latino workers’ had a greater likelihood for wage theft and of dying on a work site.

NYCOSH puts forth a number of suggestions as additions to the Scaffold Law in the report:

“In response to the health and safety crisis facing New York’s construction workers, NYCOSH has a series of recommendations. NYCOSH continues its call to protect the Scaffold Safety Law, which grants injured construction workers who fall on the job the right to sue an employer who puts their life in danger. NYCOSH is also calling for new legislation to increase penalties for companies that willingly violate the law and cause a worker fatality, and to revoke the licenses of criminal contractors who were convicted of felonies in the case of a worker death. Finally, NYCOSH recommends increased training for workers, like apprenticeship programs on large construction projects, OSHA 10s on all construction sites, and licensing for elevator construction workers.”

There is no report that could be made that would invalidate the need to not only uphold the Scaffold Law, but to also add NYCOSH’s suggestions to the legislation. When the safety and lives of workers are at risk, businesses should do what they can to protect them. This includes longer training, safer work sites, and generally better employer practices amongst the construction industry.

Back in September, thousands of injured workers, legislators, and other advocates stood with us in a far-reaching fight to stop the disastrous changes proposed by the NYS Workers Compensation Board. The public comment period ended in October and as a result of the uprising, the NYS WCB rescinded the initial proposal. November 22nd, the second proposal was released. A summary of it, written by our partner Richard Donohue, Esq., is below. The period for public comment for this ends 12/22/2017. You can email regulations@wcb.ny.gov before then to voice your opinions or concerns on the changes.

NOVEMBER 2017 PROPOSED SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE GUIDELINE CHANGES

As indicated previously, the Board, under the direction of the New York State Legislature, has issued regulation changes and proposed amendments to NYS workers compensation “Impairment Guidelines for Schedule Loss of Use”. Their initial proposal dated 9/1/17 caused an extreme and fervent backlash from the labor community as well as from claimants and their attorneys during the public comment period which expired 10/23/17. As a result, the Board issued a second set of proposed regulations and guidelines dated 11/22/17 regarding Schedule Loss of Use.

The November 2017 proposal rescinded the September proposal and also carried forward most of the existing schedule loss permanency guidelines, with several significant exceptions. Although we are not in agreement with all the changes proposed in the November 2017 guidelines, we believe that this guideline proposal is a significant improvement over the initial September 2017 guideline proposal which would have devastated injured claimants and eliminated most awards for permanent loss of use to extremities.

Significantly, the November 2017 proposal eliminates the assignment of 10% to 15% schedule loss of use for rotator cuff tears, a proposal in which we are not in agreement and believe will result in lower awards for permanent shoulder injuries. Additionally, the current existing guidelines arguably permit the addition of percentage losses for both forward flexion and abduction, whereas the November 2017 proposal states that only the greater of the two losses should be used in calculating the percentage loss of use. We believe this will also result in lower awards for permanent shoulder injuries.

With regard to injuries to the elbow, some of the considerations given for mild to moderate loss of flexion are reduced insofar as the existing guidelines give a range from 7.5% to 10% whereas the new guidelines indicate only 7.5% for mild loss of flexion. Whereas the range for moderate loss of flexion was 33.33% to 40%, the new guidelines indicate that only 33% loss of use would be given for moderate loss of flexion in the elbow joint. We believe this will also result in lower monetary awards for permanent injuries to the elbow. Similar reductions were incorporated into the guidelines for the hand.

Importantly, the new guidelines also delete a 7.5% schedule loss of use attributable for meniscus tears in the knee, whereas before they were approximately in the average range of 15% to 20% under the existing guidelines.

Changes were also made in the new guidelines proposal with regard to total joint replacements of both the knee and the hip which reflect advances in surgical techniques that have resulted in better outcomes for these type of surgeries. Although we agree with the general proposal that the baseline for any schedule loss of use relative to total hip and knee injuries should begin at 35%, we believe the way the current proposal is written incorporates many range of motion finding deficits, thus making it unlikely that the final award will exceed the 35% figure, except in the event of a disastrous medical result. Range of motion deficits should be added to the 35% baseline figure, not included in it.

Certainly, while the November 2017 proposal represents a significant advance over the prior September 2017 proposal which, again, was disastrous for injured workers, we believe that there remain areas in which benefits for injured workers can be improved by eliminating some or all of the aforementioned guideline changes.

Mail this postcard to the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board with a message to help you stand up for your rights.

Email your state senator stating your opposition to the changes. If you don’t know who your senator is, click here for the Senate’s website to find out.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 23RD.

Follow the above methods to protect your rights before the comment period is over.

This past April, the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board was given the green-light to draft changes to the way payments are calculated for permanent injuries to extremities (Schedule Loss of Use evaluations). These suggestions were completed September 1st, and they ultimately resulted in drastic cuts to claimant’s benefits and, in many cases, elimination of any payment at all beyond the payment for lost time, even in cases where a fracture is sustained or surgery is necessary.

Sustaining a permanent work injury is already a stressful and life changing situation. The current benefit calculations very often don’t even compensate an injured worker adequately for what they have lost both physically and economically. Now, the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board and the New York Business community have just taken the next step in making it that much more difficult for claimant’s to get back up on their feet.

These guidelines call for the removal of rights that are intrinsic to the purpose of Worker’s Compensation Law. On top of drastic cuts to benefits during recovery, the guidelines provide greater discretion to the employers and IMEs. This will essentially create an environment of exploitation by those who oversee the injured party. These guidelines were not made in the interest of injured workers, and go against the foundation of what this law is supposed to do.

These proposed regulation and guideline changes are not only an egregious attempt to sharply reduce and/ or eliminate compensation awards to our injured members, they would also strip tens of thousands of injured workers of very important protections and due process rights by affording the employer/carrier doctors the ability to question the worker on non-medical issues, with associated penalties for “failure to comply” with the doctors’ inquiries. This is completely contrary to the purposes and intent of the NYS Workers Compensation Law, a law which has been in existence for over 100 years and was designed to protect those very same injured workers.

It is important to remember that, with the passing of the NYS Workers Compensation Law, the right of injured workers to sue their employers in cases of permanent injury was eliminated in exchange for a system which provides fair compensation for lost time and especially for permanent loss of functioning in extremity injuries. Should these new regulations be approved, our injured members will be left with little or no recourse when they sustain permanent loss of functioning of extremities while performing their work activities.

If adopted, these proposed regulation and guideline changes will certainly adversely affect our members. As a result, I implore you to take any and all action to help stop these proposals from taking effect.

An FDNY EMT suffered severe illnesses and injuries related to her heroic actions during the 9/11 clean-up operations. After being initially denied ¾’s Disability Retirement benefits from the New York City Employees Retirement System (“NYCERS”), a Supreme Court judge found that the NYCERS Medical Board acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in finding her not disabled. This represents a legal finding that NYCERS acted without “any credible evidence” to support its decision. The judge went on to note that the NYCERS Medical Board did not counter the EMT’s own treating physicians, nor those of the FDNY’s own physicians who had all found her incapable of performing the full duties required of an EMT. More importantly, the judge also found that the NYCERS Medical Board had failed to discuss the specific job duties and responsibilities required of an EMT, nor how our client could do the job despite her well documented physical limitations.

MDASR continues to help level the playing field for injured workers seeking disability benefits. If you were injured as a result of your job, call us today at (631) 665-0609.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

A Long Island man has suffered two severed nerves and three severed veins after falling from part of a construction work site that lacked a secure and safe exit point. According to DNAinfo.com, Michael Hickey was injured while working in 2015 on the new water tunnel that will soon connect Staten Island and Brooklyn. “The suit claims the city failed to provide a “scaffold, ladder and/or other safety device” to help workers climb out of the tunnel during construction. Workers instead had to climb a patch of land that had “slick, slippery rocks hidden beneath muck and unlevel, hole-laden, raised depressed and obscured surface,” as quoted from DNAinfo.com. The suit was filed against the city for $2 million. Due to the severity of his injuries, Hickey was unable to continue his work at the construction site. The article notes that Hickey’s lawsuit was transferred on February 25th, 2017 to a Staten Island court after it was initially filed in Brooklyn.

Work site safety in the construction industry has been a topic of severity for the past few years. It recently came to a head in January when 21 new bills were introduced to bolster work site safety. To further reflect the importance of this, an article posted on NYDailynews.com states “Incidents involving either fatalities or injuries jumped from 128 in 2011 to 435 in 2015 in the state as a whole. Meanwhile, the number of safety inspections by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the state fell each year, from 2,722 in 2011 to 1,966 in 2015, the study found. That’s a drop of about 27%, and the study said that’s mostly because of a reduction in the number of OSHA inspectors in New York State — from 82 in 2012 to 66 in 2015.”

This is all came prior to a bill recently submitted by Housing and Building Committee Chair Jumaane Williams and Councilmember Carlos Menchaca, along with the support of other City officials, to help mandate better safety training and skills for workers.

On February 27th, the previously tentative agreement between the City and the PBA was ratified. This is the first time in 5 years that the PBA has been under a union contract. It gives the current NYPD officers a total 11.25% raise over the life of the contract, but also ultimately lowers the pay for future officers, according to an article posted on The Chief Leader. The raise that current cops get will cause future cops to take longer to get to the maximum salary. The article notes that “The pact also features a significantly improved disability benefit for cops hired after 2009 and gives all officers the right to cash in all unused leave days once they exit the NYPD. It also implements the city’s body-camera program, which will expand to affect 5,000 patrol officers by July 2018 and require all those on patrol to wear and operate them by the end of the following year.” According to the New York Daily News, ¾ disability pensions will be made available to new PBA members with as low as 1% employee contribution. This is a success for Mayor de Blasio, who has recently had a rocky relationship with the NYPD. The agreement was reached February 27th with an overwhelming amount of union members participating in the vote and just 2% of members voting against the contract. The agreement also requires all officers to be fitted with body cameras by 2019.

An internal investigation into a former Nassau County jail nurse has reportedly been mishandled and Nassau County COBA President is fighting for answers. After a long series of letters, articles, press conferences, and investigations, former Nassau County Jail nurse Chantiel Cox was charged and arrested February 3rd, 2017 for smuggling contraband to inmates.

Nassau County COBA President Brian Sullivan received a series of letters from the Nassau County DA’s office painting a disturbing picture of an obstructed internal investigation of the former nurse. She and two other accomplices were allegedly smuggling razorblades, cellphones, synthetic drugs and other items to inmates. She initially was fired, without charges, from the jail following an internal investigation of the smuggling ring. Prosecutors weren’t formally made aware of the internal investigation. According to a video from Ucomm.com of a press conference that took place last month, the Nassau County DA found out through outside sources and then demanded a briefing from jail administration. Following the briefing, the DA’s office conducted its own investigation and then later arrested and charged Cox. An article on Ucomm.com paints a history of negligent facility searches and a general trend of searches being carried out poorly when violent situations arise. The same article states that for nearly a year after having knowledge that the nurse in question was bringing contraband into the correctional facility, there was no facility-wide search ordered for weapons, drugs, cell phones or other items.

A series of letters from the Nassau DA’s office sent to the Nassau County COBA President dating back to December of 2015, as referenced by Newsday, is what set the Union’s appeal for another investigation into motion. Prosecutors learned of the smuggling ring in December 2015 after the DA’s office was alerted by outside sources about the scheme. Chief Assistant DA, Albert Teichman, followed up by saying that not only was the investigation immediately conducted but that even though the sheriff’s initial investigation was mishandled, “the failures were non-criminal”. Ultimately, he later stated that he also asked County Attorney Carnell Foskey that all county agencies be reminded the police or prosecutors ” must be notified of any potential criminal investigation”, as quoted from the Newsday article about this case published in January. There was no question during this correspondence that the DA’s office or police should have been formally and properly consulted about the initial internal investigation.

The mishandled investigation into this matter only facilitates the unsafe landscapes of jails for inmates and correctional staff alike. If individuals who work inside these correctional facilities are overworked and understaffed, it creates a dangerous environment. Someone taking advantage of their access to secured and controlled spaces to further distribute materials, some that inmates can make in the jail without outside help, perpetuates the already vicious cycle of violence in jails. For more information about this case, please see the links below.

Navigation

Affiliations

DISCLAIMER: The information on this site is not and is not intended to be legal advice. Consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Our attorneys are available to consult with you at your convenience. Contact us via telephone, letter, or email; however, contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, please do not send confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been established by agreement between the parties.